## Facts

- Robert Strong led a small religious group teaching “mind over matter” and claimed he could prevent physical harm through mental power.
- Strong had previously conducted a ritual in which a volunteer was stabbed without injury, according to a follower’s testimony.
- During a similar ceremony, Strong stabbed Kenneth Goings in the chest with three knives and a hatchet as part of the demonstration.
- Goings bled after the ritual; Strong attempted to bandage him and later expressed concern when Goings’ condition worsened.
- Goings died from the stab wounds.
- Strong was indicted for second-degree manslaughter based on recklessly causing Goings’s death.
- At trial, Strong testified he sincerely believed his powers would protect Goings and that he did not expect injury.
- The defense requested a jury instruction on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense; the trial court refused.
- The jury convicted Strong of second-degree manslaughter, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court was required to submit criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense of second-degree manslaughter when a reasonable view of the evidence supported negligence rather than recklessness.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the manslaughter conviction and ordered a new trial.
- The court held that the trial court erred by refusing the requested lesser-included instruction.
- The record permitted a reasonable finding that Strong failed to perceive (rather than perceived and disregarded) the risk of death.
- On retrial, the lesser charge must be submitted if the evidence again supports it.

## Legal Principles

- A requested lesser-included offense must be submitted when there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater offense.
- The key distinction between second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide is mens rea: recklessness requires perceiving and consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk; criminal negligence requires failing to perceive that risk.
- When the evidence supports competing reasonable inferences about the defendant’s mental state, the jury—not the court—must decide which level of culpability was proven.

## Conclusion

Because the evidence allowed a rational jury to find that Strong sincerely failed to perceive the lethal risk due to his asserted beliefs and prior experiences, the refusal to instruct on criminally negligent homicide was reversible error requiring a new trial.


People v. Strong, 338 N.E.2d 602 (N.Y. 1975)